Posted on 10/05/2020 4:59:24 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
On Monday, the Supreme Court declined to take up the case Kim Davis v. David Ermold, which revolved around former Rowan County, Ky., clerk Kim Davis, who notoriously refused to grant same-sex marriage licenses to a homosexual couple, citing her belief that marriage is between one man and one woman. While Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas agreed not to take up the case, they argued that the Supreme Court needs to “fix” a central error in Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), the case that legalized same-sex marriage, because the Court’s ruling supports anti-religious bigotry.
Ermold, one of the homosexual men who applied for a marriage license, sued Davis after she refused to issue one. Davis argued that she was protected from lawsuits under qualified immunity, but a judge found her in contempt of court and jailed her for five days. Ermold won the lawsuit, and Davis appealed it. The Supreme Court refused to reopen the case.
Alito and Thomas concurred with the judgment not to hear the case, but Thomas wrote (and Alito joined) a powerful condemnation of the way Obergefell mainstreams hostility toward conservative Christians and others who hold that marriage is between one man and one woman.
“Davis may have been one of the first victims of this Court’s cavalier treatment of religion in its Obergefell decision, but she will not be the last,” Thomas warned. “Due to Obergefell, those with sincerely held religious beliefs concerning marriage will find it increasingly difficult to participate in society without running afoul of Obergefell and its effect on other antidiscrimination laws.”
Thomas argued that if Congress had passed a same-sex marriage law — rather than the Supreme Court declaring same-sex marriage legal by judicial fiat — the law may have included vital protections for religious freedom. Even if it had not...
(Excerpt) Read more at pjmedia.com ...
Yeah they don’t use nooses anymore, they use the internet to hang him in the court of public opinion to try to destroy a very good man.
Whether the government can overrule religious belief will come down to seating Barrett or not.
Obergefell should be rescinded, and marriage law should reflect the ideal of one man and one woman for life.
Agreed.
Amen. May God let it be so.
“Obergefell should be rescinded”
Get the goober-mint out of the marriage business.
You wanna marry a frog, your GTO, a man, a woman and a non-binary fluid human, go ahead. None of my business.
It’s all handled under simple contract law.
Shouldnt have to get permission from the state to get married.
I agree that Obergefell was wrongly decided but not in the way most conservative think. Marriage is the purview of the states, not the federal government. The only exception is states cannot limit marriage due to race because of the 14th Amendment.
IMHO the correct legal decision in Obergefell would have been that states decide who can or cannot get married so those states that had legalized same sex marriage are allowed to do that and states that had not legalized it were also allowed to do that.
But under the full faith and credit clause of the constitution a state must recognize a marriage that is legal in one state in it’s state.
Therefore any same sex marriage in the five or six states that had legalized it to this point were valid and had to be recognized by the other states.
This is the reason I always believed we needed a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a women.
I’m not sure the “full faith and credit” clause can be extended to unlimited lengths. If one state reduced age of marriage to 6, should those marriages be recognized everywhere?
Activist justices know that they’re probably not going to be removed by the corrupt, post-17th Amendment ratification, divided Senate even if they get impeached by House.
So it’s up to us patriots to first fix Congress by electing a new patriot Congress that will fix the corrupt Supreme Court with impeachment and removal from office, followed by confirmation] of new, Constitution-respecting patriot justices.
Send “Orange Man Bad” federal and state government desperate Democrats home in November!
Supporting PDJT with a new patriot Congress and state government leaders that will promise to fully support his already excellent work for MAGA and stopping SARS-CoV-2 will effectively give fast-working Trump a “third term” in office imo.
I don’t see any problem with voting Republican ticket for 2020 elections.
Insights welcome.
Because of the way most of the Justices on the Court have been treated by the Press, I wonder if they would be susceptible to upholding common sense licensing and regulations on Commercial Speech labeled as News??
Ditto
A free marriage between a man and a woman for life is not a contract, it’s a national treasure, and it needs to be recognized as such. When men first encountered Yosemite or Yellowstone, the awe they felt inspired them to conserve the beauty of creation for future generations. Likewise, marriage is an awe-inspiring reality, where the greatest sort of creation occurs, the procreation of human beings within the context of loving natural families.
Government can recognize nature for what it is, and it should recognize marriage for what it is.
I think we need a constitutional amendment defining judicial activism as treason and prescribing penalties therefor.
Well before Obergefell I would argue here on FR for getting States out of the “marriage” business all together and was attacked often.
“Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones.
In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.”
(New Testament, Romans 1:26,27)
The churches erred when they accepted the responsibility of recording marriages for the state, IMO.
The day before the Obergefell ruling, regular citizens were on the legal side of moral thought and discussion. The next day, the Supremes moved the line so that suddenly regular folks were on the illegal side.
What could go wrong.
“... conservative Christians and others who hold that marriage is between one man and one woman.”
Ummm, no. God is the one who holds that it is one man/one woman.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.